Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Phasferous

Bastion Mode. The mode that exists, yet doesn't

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

133
[NG-NS]
Members
561 posts

So while learning some history on old features of WoWs, I came across one called Bastion Mode. The mode looked like it was fun and changed up the game in a positive way. Kept looking and found some where having issues with how strong the forts were. WGing pulled it to balance it (Update 0.5.15), then they said they had re-added it (0.5.16). Except after that there's no mention of it in any of the late on major update notes. It just stops being talked about. Not even a mention of it being removed. So what happened to it? Did WGing just try to quietly remove it? Sounded like had they actually balanced it, the game may have had better enjoyment.

 

 

Also something that I was made painfully aware of while looking into old features, is that....World of Warships isn't even out of beta. We are (including myself) all paying for Premium goods for a game that's still a Early Access game. Game hasn't even hit V1.0, which is what signifies (when creating computer programs) when a piece of software leaves testing and it fully released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
10,314 battles

Forts were annoying as h*** because even if you disabled them they healed so fast that they were functional again before anyone had a chance to capture the point. So 9 times out of 10 the first team to capture the fort had it for the rest of the game. Not to mention they had 100% accuracy and 100% fire chance.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[NG-NS]
Members
561 posts
3 minutes ago, Nikolay_Kuznetsov_ said:

Bastion mode was only enjoyable when the teams did not hide in the back and actually played the mission.

The pussifacation of game play demanded it's removal.

I would have loved this mode. The only reason I site in the back now (when in a BB) is because more then half the time I don't have any support pushing up. Most player just camp at the back, go do their own thing or just sit around and try to camp to get spotting points.

Bastion mode sounded like a much needed addition that we still need now. Something to mix things up and make the game more enjoyable and less of a brain dead experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,315
[MUDDX]
Banned
8,144 posts
23,150 battles

@Phasferous Bastion mode was interesting but as stated above there was way to much cowardice on the part of so many. Also the game is not in Beta and has not been for a very long time. The Version 1.0 label means nothing in a game like this having continuous additions to content. Such a label would mean this is all you are getting except for bug fixes from time to time so don't bother asking for another ship, weapon or change in a mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[NG-NS]
Members
561 posts
1 minute ago, Kevik70 said:

Forts were annoying as h*** because even if you disabled them they healed so fast that they were functional again before anyone had a chance to capture the point. So 9 times out of 10 the first team to capture the fort had it for the rest of the game. Not to mention they had 100% accuracy and 100% fire chance.

That's because (from what I can tell) WGing doesn't put a lot of emphasis or effort into balancing their game. Bet if they had the issue raised would have been resolved.

If it's too much effort just remove it. The WGing way.

:/

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
10,314 battles
Just now, Phasferous said:

I would have loved this mode. The only reason I site in the back now (when in a BB) is because more then half the time I don't have any support pushing up. Most player just camp at the back, go do their own thing or just sit around and try to camp to get spotting points.

Bastion mode sounded like a much needed addition that we still need now. Something to mix things up and make the game more enjoyable and less of a brain dead experience.

Nope, nope nopeidy nope. I know lots of people think Epicenter is the worst game mode but those players never played Bastion mode.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,315
[MUDDX]
Banned
8,144 posts
23,150 battles

No the forts were not 100% accurate nor did they have 100% fire starting ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[NG-NS]
Members
561 posts
Just now, Kevik70 said:

Nope, nope nopeidy nope. I know lots of people think Epicenter is the worst game mode but those players never played Bastion mode.

So acting in denial instead of looking at critical feedback is the route being taken here?

 

Why am I not surprised....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
133
[NG-NS]
Members
561 posts
Just now, CAPTMUDDXX said:

No the forts were not 100% accurate nor did they have 100% fire starting ability.

Sounds like there's a disconnect between the facts and what people think the game had (opinion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
10,314 battles
2 minutes ago, Phasferous said:

That's because (from what I can tell) WGing doesn't put a lot of emphasis or effort into balancing their game. Bet if they had the issue raised would have been resolved.

If it's too much effort just remove it. The WGing way.

:/

They spend several patches nerfing/ improving the forts. Too strong and the fort became unapproachable, too weak and it might have well been a regular domination match. WG never found that balance and I hope they don't really bother outside operations. 

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,654
[CALM]
Beta Testers
6,831 posts
5,139 battles

The mode was great. Shortened match times and made the game more aggressive.

That being said, it did have some minor balance problems; ones that WG was too lazy to correct. Things like the firing rates, accuracy, and regen rates of the Forts were things WG could have adjusted every other patch and made it into a better mode. The Radar installations also could have been balanced as well; making it light up the area for 10 seconds then go dark for 20 rather than continuously light up the area, as well as adjusting the range/regen rate of the structure.

The other problem was that WG didn't want to come up with new maps that further accommodated the forts as well as place in universally hostile forts inhibiting some zones, and tried forcing some into maps without ideal planning. The Hotspot Bastion mode being one of those. Sure, a few maps would have done nicely with just forts; no radar. In fact, there are a number of maps with possible fort locations that could have easily inhibited some map-edge hugging with placement of hostile, non-capturable NPC forts locking down that area.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
10,314 battles
2 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

No the forts were not 100% accurate nor did they have 100% fire starting ability.

I don't remember exactly but when forts used HE is was pretty dang close. Time has faded my memories but I am pretty sure when I sailed too close in a BB I spent quite a bit of time on fire. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
10,314 battles
1 minute ago, YamatoA150 said:

The mode was great. Shortened match times and made the game more aggressive.

That being said, it did have some minor balance problems; ones that WG was too lazy to correct. Things like the firing rates, accuracy, and regen rates of the Forts were things WG could have adjusted every other patch and made it into a better mode. The Radar installations also could have been balanced as well; making it light up the area for 10 seconds then go dark for 20 rather than continuously light up the area, as well as adjusting the range/regen rate of the structure.

The other problem was that WG didn't want to come up with new maps that further accommodated the forts as well as place in universally hostile forts inhibiting some zones, and tried forcing some into maps without ideal planning. The Hotspot Bastion mode being one of those. Sure, a few maps would have done nicely with just forts; no radar. In fact, there are a number of maps with possible fort locations that could have easily inhibited some map-edge hugging with placement of hostile, non-capturable NPC forts locking down that area.

Didn't help that the radar installations were placed so that no one was able to target them. They had low HP and could have easily taken out had anyone actually been able to hit them. WG said they fixed that a few patches in but they didn't actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,654
[CALM]
Beta Testers
6,831 posts
5,139 battles
5 minutes ago, Kevik70 said:

Didn't help that the radar installations were placed so that no one was able to target them. They had low HP and could have easily taken out had anyone actually been able to hit them. WG said they fixed that a few patches in but they didn't actually.

IIRC, part of it was the lock on issue; it caused locked-on guns to hit lower than where aimed on islands. I recall having to aim high to hit the structures. The other part was the small hitboxes.

To be fair, the lock on/hitbox issue still exists in some degree as far as Ops go; where it looks like the shells hit, but because the hitbox of the structure is smaller than the visual, nothing registers. Sometimes, one has to aim further to actually hit the hitbox at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
347
[GRETA]
[GRETA]
Members
596 posts
18,318 battles

Fort guns did way too much damage and were way too effective at denying caps. Even DDs can't cap successfully because the radar towers have a 10km range (worse than DM). And as others mentioned, radar towers were placed in a way that makes it extremely difficult to knock them out.

https://youtu.be/YoupnJU8_e8

WG could have used sea forts as a MOBA element for teams to capture or defend, but instead juryrigged them poorly into existing modes. Eventually they saw what was happening and pulled them from randoms.

You can still find them in scenario mode, though way less powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
10,314 battles
1 minute ago, YamatoA150 said:

IIRC, part of it was the lock on issue; it caused locked-on guns to hit lower than where aimed on islands. I recall having to aim high to hit the structures. The other part was the small hitboxes.

To be fair, the lock on/hitbox issue still exists in some degree as far as Ops go; where it looks like the shells hit, but because the hitbox of the structure is smaller than the visual, nothing registers. Sometimes, one has to aim further to actually hit the hitbox at all.

All I really remember is not being able to hit them at all, unless I was playing CV. With the stations never going down and forts being able to completely wreck dds with a  single hit, it was really hard to cap bases that were taken by the enemy, especially late game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,541
[NG-NL]
Members
6,258 posts
10,088 battles

The forts were hated for their godlike accuracy and constant damage. CVs could barely do anything since they have AA powerful enough to fight T11 planes.

Wasn't exactly a great mode for NA crowd, lot of them are wimpy and didn't want to fix their playstyle for excelling at this mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
10,314 battles
24 minutes ago, Phasferous said:

Sounds like there's a disconnect between the facts and what people think the game had (opinion).

Bastion's forts had several adjustments over a number of patches. I don't quite recall what they all where but at the end forts became unnecessarily tough obstacles by the end of the game. Now I wouldn't have minded if the fort system was added  to standard battles as a last line of defense for your team's base but otherwise I don't miss them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,848
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles

One possible solution to the power of the forts would be to make them weaker each time they are destroyed & regenerate. They are static emplacements, after all, being pounded on in an extended battle is going to degrade their performance. This will in turn make them "scale" to ships at the end of the battle also being banged up.

 

Weakened AA, reduced HP before they're forced to regen, reduced accuracy and ROF, etc. A stacking debuff that's added when the fort is killed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
10,314 battles
14 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

One possible solution to the power of the forts would be to make them weaker each time they are destroyed & regenerate. They are static emplacements, after all, being pounded on in an extended battle is going to degrade their performance. This will in turn make them "scale" to ships at the end of the battle also being banged up.

 

Weakened AA, reduced HP before they're forced to regen, reduced accuracy and ROF, etc. A stacking debuff that's added when the fort is killed.

Maybe just made the main guns destroy-able like secondaries on ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,097 posts
32,441 battles
1 hour ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

No the forts were not 100% accurate nor did they have 100% fire starting ability.

That's right...they were both only about 99%.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,848
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,895 battles
7 minutes ago, Kevik70 said:

Maybe just made the main guns destroy-able like secondaries on ships.

They already were destroyable. The problem is they recovered to full 100% capacity each time.

If it was destroyed and returned to 90% capacity, then 80%, then 70%, all the way down to like only 30% as effective (and not going lower) as the match went on, this would probably be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,615 posts
10,314 battles
Just now, KiyoSenkan said:

They already were destroyable. The problem is they recovered to full 100% capacity each time.

If it was destroyed and returned to 90% capacity, then 80%, then 70%, all the way down to like only 30% as effective (and not going lower) as the match went on, this would probably be better.

The guns could be disabled, but I mean that the guns themselves should be able to be perma destroyed for the rest of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×